Religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until it created it.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'm not sure if there is a dispute--that's simply the point of the OP: religion solves problems it creates.

But my point in that "shame" and "guilt" exist independent of "religion."

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

It conditions you to feel guilty about things that aren't malum in se, and then conditions you to turn to religion for forgiveness. 

But then what is "malum in se"?  My point is that things that fit within that category are not "created" by "religion," but instead exist independent of it.  "Religion" simply formally recognizes and codifies things that are bad "in and of themselves."

In the LDS context, I think there are some commandments that are malum prohibitum.  The consumption of alcohol, for example, is malum prohibitum.  So it polygamy.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

With regards to the first question, murder, thievery, and sexual assault are clearly and unambiguously bad for society and thus bad for the people within it.

So if two people found themselves alone on an island, one would be at liberty to rape and steal from and murder the other?  There is no "society" around, after all.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

This fact is so distinctively true that evolutionary forces have encoded these facts into our biology. For deeper discussions on this, I'd recommend the books, The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Biology, by Robert Wright, and The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris. 

Thanks!

-Smac

[canard78]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

It is both an assumption that religion creates problems and religion addresses problems that were already there.

Generally religious believers believe the problems already existed, so they would not see it as circular, but filling a need.

So it seems a discussion destined to simply confirm individuals' original position to me.

Yes, very true. It's unlikely to really go anywhere as it's so heavily dependent on one's initial paradigm. 

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

And where did you get the "problem" of the conditions of the fall that you need to be saved from? You got it from the same book(s) of doctrine that provide you the solution to that problem. 

I'm only using Mosiah 3:19 as an illustration. 

God knew "in the beginning" that man will not make it to celestial glory. It would be impossible for them to achieve it due to their own inherent weaknesses. Yet came up with a plan to make the impossible possible and the scriptures outline how the impossible is now achieved.

[canard78]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is not my answer it is that of an atheist on a page called "Atheist Guilt"

https://www.quora.com/Do-atheists-have-guilt

 

It's not your answer, but do you agree with him anyway?

I'm not saying that I think that atheists/agnostics can comfortably forsake all immorality at all. 

What, though, is legitimately immoral? I'd consider myself agnostic rather than atheist but, either way, some things are still recognisably immoral, with or without a deity watching me. 

Society can collectively agree that an act that does harm to another member of that society is immoral but that an act that does not, isn't. If I were to cause harm to another, I would be guilty of causing that harm and should feel guilty. 

If, on the other hand, I do something that is only causing harm to my relationship with a god I don't believe in (but you do, or a society does), I'm not a menace if I feel no guilt or, more accurately, shame. 

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, canard78 said:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

It's a false proposal.  The problem exists whether it is identified or not.  Religion didn't create it, just reported it.

Violations of chastity are sinful and break eternal laws.  Salvation can be provided through repentance and the atonement.

Ignorance of the laws don't change the violation or the potential solution.

[canard78]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Is there much of a difference? I have read enough Plato and other old Greek stories  to know that a society whose gods are amoral jerks can set up philosophies of right conduct with no real religious injunctions backing them. 

There is a definite difference between guilt and shame, although it's interesting that you'd use them interchangeably.

To feel shame or ashamed is "the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous"

To feel guilt or guilty is "feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime,wrong, etc."

I know there's overlap in the definition, but there's also a nuanced difference when you explore the differences through etymology and contextual usage.

Humans are inherently messed up whether you attribute it to a Fall or happenstance of how we came to be. Religion can be a cure but that is not proof they made up the disease. We live in a generation that has tried to severely limit what is wrong to crimes against others and suggesting what we do to ourselves is fine and our choice. I am not convinced this generation is more psychologically adjusted.

Remonds me of Twentieth Century sexual liberation movements. We are told that culture and/or religion stifled it and if we just gave it fresh air it would sort itself out. It has not and the prescription is always more fresh air. How much does it need?

Humans are inherently complicated. We have complicated brains that are easily messed up. 

Religion provides answers that are mentally satisfying and structures/habits that are sometimes mentally soothing but can also sometimes be mentally damaging. Many of those positives are not exclusive to religion.

If the 20thC sexual liberation movement got it wrong, that doesn't immediately prove religion right. "Test and measure" is a different approach to "God said so."

My children's generation might end up being far less sexually active, irresponsible or promiscuous than my or my parents' generation. Not because of God or dogma, but because of experience and education.

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, canard78 said:

It's not your answer, but do you agree with him anyway?

I'm not saying that I think that atheists/agnostics can comfortably forsake all immorality at all. 

What, though, is legitimately immoral? I'd consider myself agnostic rather than atheist but, either way, some things are still recognisably immoral, with or without a deity watching me. 

Society can collectively agree that an act that does harm to another member of that society is immoral but that an act that does not, isn't. If I were to cause harm to another, I would be guilty of causing that harm and should feel guilty. 

If, on the other hand, I do something that is only causing harm to my relationship with a god I don't believe in (but you do, or a society does), I'm not a menace if I feel no guilt or, more accurately, shame. 

All immorality is either bad for you individually or for society in general if you think in terms of universalizable maxims- "would it be better for society if everyone always did this in this situation?"  I will pick some examples probably viewed to be pretty harmless.

If everyone watched porn instead of having intercourse, that would not be good for society- I hope I do not have to go into the details

I believe that each use of porn objectifies humans to a small degree- and the objectification of humans is not good for society.

Throwing trash in the street, is perhaps barely immoral, Obviously if everyone did it on a continuing basis, it would be horrible.  If everyone went through red lights on a continuing basis- chaos.

I would argue that it is even good to give to charity and to not give to charity is a tiny bit immoral.   It is a source of goodness for society which would not exist if no one gave to charity.

Cursing is hardly immoral, but I sure do not want to listen to it day in and out.  It makes life a little more unpleasant than it should be.   Anything else in mind that "harms no one"?

Smoking weed?  At the very least, it stinks and I don't want to smell it.  Obviously in general intoxication is not good for society,

These are kinds of things that add up to make a society a Zion society or one like what we have now.   These little societal nastinesses  add up into the "blood and sins of this generation" of which we are all guilty to some degree.

Even my unkindness on this board for example, adds to the general mire of life rather than removing it.  

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Edited December 13, 2016 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think you know this is a circular argument, right?  Because it presumes that religion is "correct" when the assumption of the OP is that religion is NOT correct?  I am on your side but it isn't the best argument.

If one accepts that the story of Eden, Adam and Eve is "religion" then yes, it is a circular argument. If one believes as I do that "religion" is placed on top of history by man, then religion is a creation of man and not of God. God would probably simply call it spiritual teachings  

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

A bit of an eye-roll to be honest. It's a myopic view of guilt/shame, sin, personal dissonance, salvation, and spiritual healing. There are things that I see that I think that religion can also exacerbate and shrink the problem in one go. But there are far more where that's just not the case. 

I think, win or without religion there are basic things that will not sit well in a person's soul, whether inflicted by others or brought by themselves. I've watched this disonnance in others as they grapple with feelings of discontent and guilt. I just watched a grown person sob as they realized what they had done in self-oriented desires had been abusive and coercive to their spouse. I watched another hide from guilt and pain by burying it and making "penance" to make their self feel better by small acts to their ex-spouse that did next to nothing in the deeper wounds they continued to maintain. One was religious. The other wasn't. In fact one worked to remove religious influence from their life. Didn't work. 

Personally that's not at all how I would describe the narrative to my salvation or healing. It rarely lines up to my experiences as I came to seek out God and faith in my religion.  

 

But I'm up too late. Need to work out my salvation tomorrow morning with temple work.  

 

with luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

What's interesting is that if you asked an atheist who has studied social science and evolutionary biology why those things are malum in se, he or she would be able to go into great detail about why those things are wrong and why we intuitively know it.

I wonder how much Mormon guilt (or Catholic guilt, if you prefer) is from people stealing, murdering, or committing sexual assault? I would guess very little. More typical Mormon guilt would be for things like spending your disposable income for the month on Christmas presents for your kids rather than tithing to your church, doing homework on Sunday, having sex with your fiancee before your wedding night, or having a cup of coffee in order to get an extra jolt of energy in the morning. That list could go on and on and on. What about those things? If you grow up without religion will you feel guilty for doing homework on Sunday? Should you? 

Do atheists feel guilty for violating promises?   Of course they do- it is not beneficial to society to break promises without regard to whom they are made- even a god

It is like breaking a diet- you agreed with yourself to take one action and you violated it.

If you promised to not drink coffee or to pay your tithing, or do your homework on Sunday and promised yourself- and God- that you do not, it is like the guilt of violating a diet.  It is not good for you to violate promises- even to yourself.   It becomes too easy to do and to rationalize away as having been made to an imaginary being and so they do not count

Of course they count.  You have violated your own integrity and that does not produce joy.

Man is that they might have joy.   I never heard an atheist even understand that principle.   I have had times in my life when I would make out a to-do list and not do any of the items on the list, repeatedly

That did not give me joy.   That kind of behavior is called "depression" and it leads to anxiety.  THAT is the consequence of violating promises to yourself.

It is not the plan of happiness I can tell you that.   How would society be with a bunch of undisciplined slobs to do not show up for work and cannot control their own tendency to over eat?

 

Oh - wait a minute.......  

Edited December 13, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

A bit of an eye-roll to be honest. It's a myopic view of guilt/shame, sin, personal dissonance, salvation, and spiritual healing. There are things that I see that I think that religion can also exacerbate and shrink the problem in one go. But there are far more where that's just not the case. 

I think, win or without religion there are basic things that will not sit well in a person's soul, whether inflicted by others or brought by themselves. I've watched this disonnance in others as they grapple with feelings of discontent and guilt. I just watched a grown person sob as they realized what they had done in self-oriented desires had been abusive and coercive to their spouse. I watched another hide from guilt and pain by burying it and making "penance" to make their self feel better by small acts to their ex-spouse that did next to nothing in the deeper wounds they continued to maintain. One was religious. The other wasn't. In fact one worked to remove religious influence from their life. Didn't work. 

Personally that's not at all how I would describe the narrative to my salvation or healing. It rarely lines up to my experiences as I came to seek out God and faith in my religion.  

 

But I'm up too late. Need to work out my salvation tomorrow morning with temple work.  

 

with luv,

BD

THIS!!!!!   THIS!!!!   THIS!!!!

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If one accepts that the story of Eden, Adam and Eve is "religion" then yes, it is a circular argument. If one believes as I do that "religion" is placed on top of history by man, then religion is a creation of man and not of God. God would probably simply call it spiritual teachings  

Is God an exalted Human?  Can we become like him?

Is God literally the father of our spirits and all that is sacred within us?  Is the Savior our Brother and did he live here on earth as we do?   Does he not know all our limitations and teach us how to overcome them even in our fallen nature? Aren't we to try to follow his example?  Does he give us commandments we cannot perform?  Yes, the Man of Holiness creates religion, and we, his children try our best to follow Papa.  Our minds are like his in embryo, but they ARE like his.

[waveslider]

9 hours ago, canard78 said:

Quote

 

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

If salvation is saving us from our immoral behaviors, and religion is what tells us what is moral and what is immoral, how does this create the problem? Let's say that there is no God. Who then dictates what is moral and what is immoral? Society? Political leaders? Scientists? A dictator? These pose far more problems then religion does. Let's start with society. There are always differences in opinion by individuals in that society. If we do it democratically it just means that the majority creates the morals and imposes it upon the minority. If it is done by a democratic republic, it at least gives the minority a voice, but then it goes to the political leaders in the long run, who can be bought off and corrupted, making corrupt morals eventually. Scientists would probably ascribe to the survival of the fittest. That could very well lead to genocide eventually, when someone decides that being smart and in power as being more fit than the ignorant masses. A dictator..... well I would hope that we would all know that answer as, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Without God making the moral standards, my question is who then makes the moral standards? And how is that not going to be a much worse problem in the long run than if God made the moral standards?

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

... I now see that smac beat me to it...carry on!

That thar Smac's a pretty smart fella!  

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 hours ago, canard78 said:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

I've heard people say the exact same thing about physicians and Western medicine...

[Daniel2]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

While objectifying your partner.

If the sex was all that good you would not need porn.  It's a poor substitute for the real thing.  It's like giving someone a picture of a lamb chop when he is hungry.  Unless of course intimacy with a real human is frightening or unsatisfying.  

I personally find the possibility of creating new life phenomenally stimulating.   That's hard to do with a picture or movie.

 

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I fully expect porn addiction to be the next great health crisis of the western world assuming nothing catastrophic occurs health wise in the next 20-30 years. The first generation to have general access to internet pornography when young are still only in their 30s and 40s. High speed internet where you can have a new vicarious sex partner every 10 seconds for a much shorter time. It will be interesting to see what the long-term effects of this are and I do not expect it will be in a good way.

Thank you both for illustrating my point so quickly and eloquently, without even acknowledging the possibilities I previously mentioned.

I rest my case.

[Daniel2]

Dup

Edited December 13, 2016 by Daniel2

[canard78]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've heard people say the exact same thing about physicians and Western medicine...

One being testable through repeatable, double-blind testing... and the other not!

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

The usefulness of porn is one great example of the theme of this thread.

Conservative religion casts ANY porn in the role of a destructive villain which threatens marital relationships, is addictive, and relationship-ending.

Liberal religion can accept and promote the possibility that responsible and mutual appreciation of at least some types of non-exploitative porn which can expand, enrich, deepen, and support healthy intimacy and sexuality within committed marital relationships.

How do you explain atheists who believe that porn is harmful?  

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, canard78 said:

One being testable through repeatable, double-blind testing... and the other not!

If something is not testable, does that make it unreal? 

 

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

What's interesting is that if you asked an atheist who has studied social science and evolutionary biology why those things are malum in se, he or she would be able to go into great detail about why those things are wrong and why we intuitively know it.

 

The problem with this line of reasoning though is that there were (probably still are some) many pagan cultures who did not intuitively know that.  Cultures where murder, rape, and even under some circumstances theft, were perfectly acceptable under the law. 

[Daniel2]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

How do you explain atheists who believe that porn is harmful?  

Two things:

a) I didn't say and don't believe that ONLY religious paradigms create problems that don't exist...  The fact that non-Faith-based organizations or individuals can also see and promote problem-paradigms where none necessarily exist doesn't negate the possibility that religiously-based institutions can and do do the same.

b) Additionally, I'm not saying that that ALL porn isn't problematic or harmful.  I'm just advocating that in some cases, non-exploitative porn CAN be useful, healthy, and beneficial.  As with most things in life, there are positive, constructive AND negative, destructive ways to use said tools.

[Gray]

19 hours ago, canard78 said:

I heard something recently about religion that caught my thoughts:

An illustration of this is simply illustrated with this Book of Mormon teaching that creates both the problem and the solution in a single verse:

So, what would you respond to the proposal that religion offers you salvation to a problem that didn't exist until religion created it?

I'm sure that religion does create problems and solutions to those problems at the same time - for example, religious shame. However guilt is a normal and healthy human emotion. The churches didn't invent it (although so many of them use it as a blunt instrument)

Edited December 13, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Two things:

a) I didn't say and don't believe that ONLY religious paradigms create problems that don't exist...  The fact that non-Faith-based organizations or individuals can also see and promote problem-paradigms where none necessarily exist doesn't negate the possibility that religiously-based institutions can and do do the same.

b) Additionally, I'm not saying that that ALL porn isn't problematic or harmful.  I'm just advocating that in some cases, non-exploitative porn CAN be useful, healthy, and beneficial.  As with most things in life, there are positive, constructive AND negative, destructive ways to use said tools.

From what i've seen, atheists use science and study to prove that problems with porn are very real.  Looking at it from that angle (and moving away from porn), how does one prove that a problem doesn't exist?

Because it kind of seems like the criteria is "if I don't believe a problem exists, then it doesn't"  Is there more to it than that?  I haven't read the whole thread so maybe someone has answered this question already and I missed it.

[pogi]

18 hours ago, canard78 said:

There's a difference between recognising the impact of choices on others and feeling a sense of responsibility (or guilt) for those choices and consequences, compared to guilt or shame for a breach of an arbitrary religious rule or shame at the inability to reach a given religions' standard of living. 

Whether we are religious or not, we buy into certain moral codes.  If God is not real, then all morals are arbitrary anyway.  They are entirely subject to individual will or judgment.